• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

"Hug your friends and family" from 17 May

Status
Not open for further replies.

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
12,744
Location
0036
Recent media reports suggest that the date on which people will be "allowed" to hug friends and family will be brought forward from 21 June to 17 May. How generous of the government.

(As we know on this forum, this has never in fact been prohibited.)

 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
3,276
I thought that it was advised against rather than forbidden.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,541
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Recent media reports suggest that the date on which people will be "allowed" to hug friends and family will be brought forward from 21 June to 17 May. How generous of the government.

(As we know on this forum, this has never in fact been prohibited.)


Do they *really* think this hasn't been going on?

I do find it rather disgusting the extent to which this government feels people are incapable of making their own informed risk assessments.

Still, whilst we're all pontificating and arguing about hugging and masks, we aren't thinking about all the cases where people have picked up SARS-CoV-2 in an NHS setting...
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
1,638
Still, whilst we're all pontificating and arguing about hugging and masks, we aren't thinking about all the cases where people have picked up SARS-CoV-2 in an NHS setting...
...or the wallpaper...
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
12,744
Location
0036
But can you stay overnight?
From 17 May, it will be permissible to gather indoors in groups of up to 6, which will enable staying overnight with another household assuming the size criteria permit. (Before the pedants jump in, there are already possibilities for this e.g. with linked households.)
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
3,198
Location
Maidstone
Do they *really* think this hasn't been going on?

I do find it rather disgusting the extent to which this government feels people are incapable of making their own informed risk assessments.

Still, whilst we're all pontificating and arguing about hugging and masks, we aren't thinking about all the cases where people have picked up SARS-CoV-2 in an NHS setting...
It does annoy me that anyone who tries to point out covid cases acquired in hospitals is shouted down for doing so, whether as a conspiracy theorist or just being accused of ignorance of the wider situation.

On hugging while I believe it's definitely been going on, I've not been able to, partly for living in a house share and not with immediate family, but many colleagues and friends who I might hug are among the very cautious lot and I know they wouldn't do it without having to ask (as I work in a public sector organisation that might have something to do with it), while anyone else who maybe of a similar view to me is either too far away or in a life situation that combined with the current situation hasn't made it possible to physically meet with them. There were a few instances last summer where I hugged my mum on her request, when in theory it wasn't recommended, but nothing since then.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,541
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
It does annoy me that anyone who tries to point out covid cases acquired in hospitals is shouted down for doing so, whether as a conspiracy theorist or just being accused of ignorance of the wider situation.

Yes it’s a bit of a bugbear of mine. I don’t *blame* the NHS for people picking it up in hospitals as it’s always a well-known thing that hospitals are infection petri-dishes, however this doesn’t change the fact that the Covid deaths I know of in my family, friend or work circles all without exception seem to trace back to a hospital.

Which rather puts in perspective all the fussing about settings like shops. How many infections were ever picked up in, for example, your average antiques shop? Few I’d suspect. Even less in hotels, especially if the restaurants are taken out of the equation.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
1,969
I do find it rather disgusting the extent to which this government feels people are incapable of making their own informed risk assessments.

They are right, people are very poor at making risk assessments, especially in cases where the consequences are externalised. Hence why people who are scared of flying have no problem getting in a car and driving, or people who object to COVID restrictions mouth off about "I will take the risk", completely ignoring it is about RISK TO OTHER PEOPLE as much as themself. People are selfish and thoughtless, which is why we have a load of laws to limit freedom and cater for compensating those on the wrong end of someone elses careless/stupidity/recklessness. If people were good at risk assessment we wouldn't need tons of red tape, paperwork or healty and safety. The fundamental problem is heavily flawed humans, not the response.
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
1,691
They are right, people are very poor at making risk assessments, especially in cases where the consequences are externalised. Hence why people who are scared of flying have no problem getting in a car and driving, or people who object to COVID restrictions mouth off about "I will take the risk", completely ignoring it is about RISK TO OTHER PEOPLE as much as themself. People are selfish and thoughtless, which is why we have a load of laws to limit freedom and cater for compensating those on the wrong end of someone elses careless/stupidity/recklessness. If people were good at risk assessment we wouldn't need tons of red tape, paperwork or healty and safety. The fundamental problem is heavily flawed humans, not the response.

I think you will find that humans have survived on 'I feel a bit ill, I won't go out today' for centuries, without it being mandated (certainly in my life all the fools who go into work coughing and spluttering everywhere have been firmly told to not come in the next day). And naturally most people won't visit their frail grandparents if they are feeling ill.

You're right, health and safety laws are aimed at the lowest common denonimator, but until the last year they have not affected the very fabric of our lives. It has gone way too far now.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,868
Location
Redcar
What if I prefer my friends and family to remain at a safe distance? Nothing to do with Covid, I'm just not a fan of them? :lol:;):lol:;):lol:
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
2,612
They are right, people are very poor at making risk assessments, especially in cases where the consequences are externalised. Hence why people who are scared of flying have no problem getting in a car and driving, or people who object to COVID restrictions mouth off about "I will take the risk", completely ignoring it is about RISK TO OTHER PEOPLE as much as themself. People are selfish and thoughtless, which is why we have a load of laws to limit freedom and cater for compensating those on the wrong end of someone elses careless/stupidity/recklessness. If people were good at risk assessment we wouldn't need tons of red tape, paperwork or healty and safety. The fundamental problem is heavily flawed humans, not the response.
To a large extent, I would agree with this.

It is a reason I supported lockdowns - in principle, not necessarily the full details re exact timing, specifics of measures etc but "The Public" needed a simple, communicable message "stay at home" was that message. Anything more nuanced complicates things and leads to poor judgement by those not equipped (or sufficiently informed) to properly make them. The people who have decent thinking skills (or believe they have) then apply their own nuance to the message - going for a drive to test their eyes, checking on their second home, having a friend round for Sunday afternoon etc or less facetiously going for exercise twice per day, for more than an hour, perhaps with a short drive first. You might call it stretching the rules, or applying common sense, or simply "do what I say, not what I do".

"People" are a darned nuisance because they do not make sensible judgements, you have to aim the message at the lowest common denominator. Recently a foot crossing was closed (at Burton Joyce?) and there is a picture of youngsters sat on the crossing. I'm sure they thought it was safe, "you can always see the train coming and there is time to get out of the way", "it's always a stopping train so when it stops at the station we know to move" etc. Think of people who keep their savings in a lower paying bank account - because the bank is cuddly and friendly and when I need them they will remember what a nice person I am for being loyal to them! Like the automated systems at the bank know that when you slip into the red, or apply for a product.

Once the restrictions were relaxed, did people carry on exercising caution? In some cases yes, even excessively so, but the mad rush by many to instantly go shopping, have a government discounted meal or go on holiday showed that, in practice, sufficient numbers of people do not have much self discipline.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,018
Location
Sheffield
Once the restrictions were relaxed, did people carry on exercising caution? In some cases yes, even excessively so, but the mad rush by many to instantly go shopping, have a government discounted meal or go on holiday showed that, in practice, sufficient numbers of people do not have much self discipline
So where was the monster rise in cases in June and July when people were told they could act normally?
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,587
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
To a large extent, I would agree with this.

It is a reason I supported lockdowns - in principle, not necessarily the full details re exact timing, specifics of measures etc but "The Public" needed a simple, communicable message "stay at home" was that message. Anything more nuanced complicates things and leads to poor judgement by those not equipped (or sufficiently informed) to properly make them. The people who have decent thinking skills (or believe they have) then apply their own nuance to the message - going for a drive to test their eyes, checking on their second home, having a friend round for Sunday afternoon etc or less facetiously going for exercise twice per day, for more than an hour, perhaps with a short drive first. You might call it stretching the rules, or applying common sense, or simply "do what I say, not what I do".

"People" are a darned nuisance because they do not make sensible judgements, you have to aim the message at the lowest common denominator. Recently a foot crossing was closed (at Burton Joyce?) and there is a picture of youngsters sat on the crossing. I'm sure they thought it was safe, "you can always see the train coming and there is time to get out of the way", "it's always a stopping train so when it stops at the station we know to move" etc. Think of people who keep their savings in a lower paying bank account - because the bank is cuddly and friendly and when I need them they will remember what a nice person I am for being loyal to them! Like the automated systems at the bank know that when you slip into the red, or apply for a product.

Once the restrictions were relaxed, did people carry on exercising caution? In some cases yes, even excessively so, but the mad rush by many to instantly go shopping, have a government discounted meal or go on holiday showed that, in practice, sufficient numbers of people do not have much self discipline.
So what you are suggesting is that all human interaction needs to be regulated in order to mitigate risk? Would that be a fair assessment? If so, who makes the regulations? Other humans? Do you see the problem here?

This narrative reminds me of the 1993 film Demolition Man. In the film a 20th century cop finds himself in a world just such as this, where all human interactions are controlled, and digressions punished through fines. The plot reveals a society that has eliminated war, murder, crime, disease, and social faux pas. Sounds idyllic doesn't it, expect its not. All the perceived order & discipline comes at the cost of removing emotion from the society as well as creating and underclass of people who simply drop / are forced out of mainstream society. And sooner a later the combination of repressed emotions and repressed people find a common cause.

The point is that we are humans, we are animals, we are not robots that you just punch some code / rules / regulations into and sit back & pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Societies cannot be modelled by the few without longer term consequences. And most importantly of all, modelling societies to mitigate for risks in the natural world will simply not work. Along with viruses there are bacteria, there are organisms with teeth, stingers, spines, toxins that are a threat to us. Even the air we breath is shockingly thin in context of the planet's size, and easily altered by natural processes. Technically even oxygen is bad for us in so much that it limits the live spans of the cells we are formed of. All of this is before you consider we are flying in an orbit of a giant nuclear reactor at 67,000mph onboard a huge ball of molten rock with a thin crust, which itself is in a planetary system orbiting a galactic plane at 448,000mph, a galaxy which is also moving through our universe at 1,300,000mph. Best of all the universe is filled with various forms of energy / radiation any of which could wipe could reduce us to out atomic components in a matter of nanoseconds without any warning.

And despite 15 billion years of our universe's existence, we get less than a 100 of those years to live our fragile little lives. So here's the cut, we will not accept a handful of people telling us how to live every facet of life, its way too short for that. What you should be asking society is to find ways to help those that might be at more risk without wreaking everyone else's lives. There are many ways these can be achieved through science and medicine, we just need the knowledge, the will, and the focus of those in charge. We need solutions that actually work, not political posturing and regulated oppression. And if those in charge will not, then the rest should remove them & replace them with people that will.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,125
Location
Cheshunt
So what you are suggesting is that all human interaction needs to be regulated in order to mitigate risk? Would that be a fair assessment? If so, who makes the regulations? Other humans? Do you see the problem here?

This narrative reminds me of the 1993 film Demolition Man. In the film a 20th century cop finds himself in a world just such as this, where all human interactions are controlled, and digressions punished through fines. The plot reveals a society that has eliminated war, murder, crime, disease, and social faux pas. Sounds idyllic doesn't it, expect its not. All the perceived order & discipline comes at the cost of removing emotion from the society as well as creating and underclass of people who simply drop / are forced out of mainstream society. And sooner a later the combination of repressed emotions and repressed people find a common cause.

The point is that we are humans, we are animals, we are not robots that you just punch some code / rules / regulations into and sit back & pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Societies cannot be modelled by the few without longer term consequences. And most importantly of all, modelling societies to mitigate for risks in the natural world will simply not work. Along with viruses there are bacteria, there are organisms with teeth, stingers, spines, toxins that are a threat to us. Even the air we breath is shockingly thin in context of the planet's size, and easily altered by natural processes. Technically even oxygen is bad for us in so much that it limits the live spans of the cells we are formed of. All of this is before you consider we are flying in an orbit of a giant nuclear reactor at 67,000mph onboard a huge ball of molten rock with a thin crust, which itself is in a planetary system orbiting a galactic plane at 448,000mph, a galaxy which is also moving through our universe at 1,300,000mph. Best of all the universe is filled with various forms of energy / radiation any of which could wipe could reduce us to out atomic components in a matter of nanoseconds without any warning.

And despite 15 billion years of our universe's existence, we get less than a 100 of those years to live our fragile little lives. So here's the cut, we will not accept a handful of people telling us how to live every facet of life, its way too short for that. What you should be asking society is to find ways to help those that might be at more risk without wreaking everyone else's lives. There are many ways these can be achieved through science and medicine, we just need the knowledge, the will, and the focus of those in charge. We need solutions that actually work, not political posturing and regulated oppression. And if those in charge will not, then the rest should remove them & replace them with people that will.
Wonderful perspective.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
3,198
Location
Maidstone
The point is that we are humans, we are animals, we are not robots that you just punch some code / rules / regulations into and sit back & pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Societies cannot be modelled by the few without longer term consequences. And most importantly of all, modelling societies to mitigate for risks in the natural world will simply not work. Along with viruses there are bacteria, there are organisms with teeth, stingers, spines, toxins that are a threat to us. Even the air we breath is shockingly thin in context of the planet's size, and easily altered by natural processes. Technically even oxygen is bad for us in so much that it limits the live spans of the cells we are formed of. All of this is before you consider we are flying in an orbit of a giant nuclear reactor at 67,000mph onboard a huge ball of molten rock with a thin crust, which itself is in a planetary system orbiting a galactic plane at 448,000mph, a galaxy which is also moving through our universe at 1,300,000mph. Best of all the universe is filled with various forms of energy / radiation any of which could wipe could reduce us to out atomic components in a matter of nanoseconds without any warning.
This bit reminds me of a Frankie Boyle joke - I can't remember the original discussion on Mock the Week that provided context, only that after someone else suggesting something didn't matter, Frankie said “Nothing matters. We're essentially all highly evolved monkeys clinging to a rock that's falling through space, and the rock itself is dying.”

Do we know if hugging being allowed will actually happen from the 17th? It seems to have not come up again since papers suggested it around the time this thread was started.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
1,969
So what you are suggesting is that all human interaction needs to be regulated in order to mitigate risk? Would that be a fair assessment? If so, who makes the regulations? Other humans? Do you see the problem here?
Nice straw man. No-one has said anything about regulating all human activity. Regulation of activity that externalises risk or cost on others is perfectly reasonable, this is why we have far more regulations imposed on motorists than pedestrians for example, and why restrictions on activities where there is some evidence transmission of a highly contageous and deadly new virus which could overwhelm the NHS if ignored were adopted during the pandemic.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,587
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Nice straw man. No-one has said anything about regulating all human activity. Regulation of activity that externalises risk or cost on others is perfectly reasonable, this is why we have far more regulations imposed on motorists than pedestrians for example, and why restrictions on activities where there is some evidence transmission of a highly contageous and deadly new virus which could overwhelm the NHS if ignored were adopted during the pandemic.
I'm sorry, did you miss the last 14 or so months? We've been told that we should not socialise, interact, or even hug. Yes, technically this wasn't illegal, but it was definitely something that the government was telling us we absolutely shouldn't do because covid. So no, it isn't a straw man at all.

You know comments like this actually make me quite angry, you seem to be comfortable to be told what you can do, and who you can interact with. Well I am not. We do not elect governments to dictate every facet of our lives, those kind of authorities are more commonly known as dictatorships. And it may have escaped your attention but people living under dictatorships tend to be very unhappy, and very oppressed.
 

kez19

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2020
Messages
1,600
Location
Dundee
Nice straw man. No-one has said anything about regulating all human activity. Regulation of activity that externalises risk or cost on others is perfectly reasonable, this is why we have far more regulations imposed on motorists than pedestrians for example, and why restrictions on activities where there is some evidence transmission of a highly contageous and deadly new virus which could overwhelm the NHS if ignored were adopted during the pandemic.

You sure about that? We are forever hounded by the media and the likes of SAGE controlling our lives but I guess they can control but we can’t control them?

I think you need to look beyond what’s being said and look a lot deeper, there is indeed a light coming out of this tunnel and there will be a rude awakening but still if you haven’t seen the light it will eventually click but I generally would switch off from the news media as they have become pretty much clickbait material, look at things in a different perspective you will see it.

So what you are suggesting is that all human interaction needs to be regulated in order to mitigate risk? Would that be a fair assessment? If so, who makes the regulations? Other humans? Do you see the problem here?

This narrative reminds me of the 1993 film Demolition Man. In the film a 20th century cop finds himself in a world just such as this, where all human interactions are controlled, and digressions punished through fines. The plot reveals a society that has eliminated war, murder, crime, disease, and social faux pas. Sounds idyllic doesn't it, expect its not. All the perceived order & discipline comes at the cost of removing emotion from the society as well as creating and underclass of people who simply drop / are forced out of mainstream society. And sooner a later the combination of repressed emotions and repressed people find a common cause.

The point is that we are humans, we are animals, we are not robots that you just punch some code / rules / regulations into and sit back & pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Societies cannot be modelled by the few without longer term consequences. And most importantly of all, modelling societies to mitigate for risks in the natural world will simply not work. Along with viruses there are bacteria, there are organisms with teeth, stingers, spines, toxins that are a threat to us. Even the air we breath is shockingly thin in context of the planet's size, and easily altered by natural processes. Technically even oxygen is bad for us in so much that it limits the live spans of the cells we are formed of. All of this is before you consider we are flying in an orbit of a giant nuclear reactor at 67,000mph onboard a huge ball of molten rock with a thin crust, which itself is in a planetary system orbiting a galactic plane at 448,000mph, a galaxy which is also moving through our universe at 1,300,000mph. Best of all the universe is filled with various forms of energy / radiation any of which could wipe could reduce us to out atomic components in a matter of nanoseconds without any warning.

And despite 15 billion years of our universe's existence, we get less than a 100 of those years to live our fragile little lives. So here's the cut, we will not accept a handful of people telling us how to live every facet of life, its way too short for that. What you should be asking society is to find ways to help those that might be at more risk without wreaking everyone else's lives. There are many ways these can be achieved through science and medicine, we just need the knowledge, the will, and the focus of those in charge. We need solutions that actually work, not political posturing and regulated oppression. And if those in charge will not, then the rest should remove them & replace them with people that will.


Isn’t it a bit strange “Hollywood” predicted certain things, you could even look at The Simpsons too, I wouldn’t had believed certain things even related to things like this but yet go back or say or more recent it’s accurately scary!
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
1,691
This seems an appropriate place to drop this TED talk... it perfectly encapsulates my thoughts on the past year, and my feelings on the psychology behind it.

 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
3,198
Location
Maidstone
Some of the language being used by SAGE in the last 2 days about how to hug safely, has been some of, if not the most patronising stuff I've heard them say throughout all this, and I like to think they've let the cat out of the bag about how they might be enjoying controlling our lives as a result. It's certainly created much attention online about its dystopian feel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top